Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court directed for the CRPF personnel to be considered as having proceeded on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30-06-2021.
In the present case, respondent conducted proper departmental inquiry and found the petitioner guilty. The petitioner was involved in 52 cases and subjected to different punishments. The petitioner is claiming that dismissal from service is harsh punishment, and it should be substituted with compulsory retirement.
“While the guideline aims to protect judicial officers from unwarranted harassment, it does not eliminate the possibility of addressing genuine issues faced by individuals or communities due to the actions of a judicial officer. The High Court retains the responsibility to ascertain the authenticity of the complaints and take appropriate action based on verified facts.”
Allahabad High Court said that the Tribunal has not considered the effect of acquittal of the petitioner from the identical criminal charges. The judgment is completely silent about the same. This is an apparent perversity on the part of the Tribunal.
The onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the sample of the contraband seized during investigation proceedings is the same which was forwarded to CFSL for examination and that there is no tampering of the same.
Allahabad High Court Disability In a case where an employee of Central Bank of India petitioned to be exempted from routine transfers
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.B. Shukre and G. A. Sanap, JJ. allowed an application setting aside an FIR for
Calcutta High Court: Rajasekhar Mantha, J. while adjudicating a case involving serious offences under Section 365, 354B and other provisions of IPC
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Atul Sreedharan, J. decided on a petition which was filed by the petitioner who was aggrieved by the
The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives.
Chhattisgarh High Court: P. Sam Koshy J., dismissed the petition stating that no interference is required at this juncture keeping in mind
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Alok Kumar Verma, JJ., dismissed a writ petition which was filed in
Involvement of a member of the police service in a heinous crime, if established, has a direct bearing on the confidence of society in the police.
Madras High Court: RMT. Teeka Raman, J., while addressing a petition observed that, “A plea of customary divorce is a valid defence
Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. dismissed the petition and no relief given to the petitioners. The facts of the case
Jharkhand High Court: Dr S.N. Pathak, J. dismissed the instant writ petition being devoid of merit. The brief facts of the case
Jharkhand High Court: Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., dismissed the criminal petition seeking exoneration from criminal proceedings. In the present case, the petitioner
Orissa High Court: Biswanath Rath, J. dismissed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the
Allahabad High Court: A Full Bench of Pankaj Mithal, Suneet Kumar and Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, JJ. dismissed a batch of writ petitions
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of A.M. Babu and V. Chitambaresh, JJ. allowed a petition preferred by the State against the